IS BURGER KING THE king of burgers? Hard to say since the Burger industry has so many choices. And the king has decided to go social activists rather than focus on their product.

Starting with a misleading video on Net Neutrality, the chain now introduced an anti-bullying PSA.

Now what’s wrong with that? You might be asking. It could be nothing, but it gives the impression that they care more about social justice than their customers.

Take the new ad, they have teen actors pretend to bully another teen and send their customers “bullied” burgers, and record the reactions. Will the customers be more upset about the burgers or the bullied? If it were me, I’d be furious that they care more about catering to activists than to paying customers.

I don’t go to Burger King often, so losing my business would be imperceptible to their bottom line but that they value their customers, so little is troubling. Especially when the market has so many options and burgers, are not their only competition. Fast food and restaurants are a demonstration of the success possible in the free market.

If examined, there are probably already signs of distress within the company because this. Keep in mind this merely speculation on my part.

Besides the willingness to dismiss their customers, the causes they are advancing, and the marketing campaigns are baffling. So far, Net Neutrality and bullying are their causes. And both campaigns have issues; the Net Neutrality one is blatantly wrong in their analogy and the bullying one is inviting a lawsuit.

Either they don’t understand Net Neutrality, or they are on the wrong side. To do their concept accurately it would have to be, the customers getting more than the asked for. Net Neutrality using their burger analogy would be the customer orders a a burger and they are served the burger and a chicken sandwich, fries, a chocolate shake, a dessert and everything else off the menu. Or they never get the burger at all and only get everything else that you don’t want.

As for the other ad, I’m confused exactly what they were expecting the customers in their establishment to do. Verbally confront the “bullies?” But what if the patrons turned violent on the actors? That’s not even all that unlikely given how passionately people have gotten on the issue. Or worse what if one of the patrons were armed? Is the little impromptu theater worth the life of one of these actors? It’s not the patrons’ responsibility to make and keep a safe environment, it’s the business owners.

However you look at it, this idea by Burger King management is asking for trouble, starting with that it appears both ads are online only. The chain could have put these ads online and on TV, a plan that would make more sense. Maybe it’s just my skeptical nature, but when things don’t add up, it generally is because of the worst case scenario. In this case, I suspect they are trying to reach a specific demographic, the youth. Those passionate youth, that will cause “the next social revolution” and won’t question these causes. Can we just get the fries and hold the social justice, please?

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. He has written books on pop culture and has an upcoming new release–Confused Yet?: Understanding the Utterly Incomprehensible.

THE SPRING, WHEN FLOWERS ARE IN BLOOM the animal kingdom is searching for their mates and with the human race our thoughts turn to–internet censorship? Yes, it’s that time again, the debate on Net Neutrality has surfaced once more and with a vengence. In an email from DemandProgress.org, “Comcast and Verizon may have won this battle, but they have not won the war.” Fight for the Future (FFTF) echoes the sentiment in their email, that in this struggle for the internet “the FCC just fired the opening shot…” And the FFTF will do “whatever it takes” to win.

Same hyperbole as last time; that the law is the only thing keeping the internet free and open, and Comcast and Verizon are nothing more than disgusting and greedy. That the “fast lanes” are tantamount to suppression of free speech, problem is it’s not true and it’s not necessarily the internet service provider that wanted the fast lanes, it was those they serve. God forbid, they offer paying customers a greater service, than those utilizing the free options. This website isn’t free, I pay a yearly subscription fee to have it listed, it’s a business expense and when the number of followers expands it will have been justified. If that doesn’t happen, then at least I can say I tried and had the autonomy that came from having an internet provided by the free market, which offers choices.

Truth is internet is free and equal, no one forces you to use their service and most offer free options, if you’re not satisfied check out the competition. That’s another way the internet is free and ahead of any public utility version the net neutered supporters desire. The patrons decide what they want to see under the current system and that’s why we should keep it this way. If “equal time” has to be dedicated to ideas the internet consumer doesn’t like, the internet could end up suffering technological stagnation, just as the telephone did under the Fairness Doctrine. This is hardly progressive. Americans​ for Prosperity sent an email out as well, briefly touching on that. This is a part of their email:

“Back in 2015 the Obama administration decided to subject the internet to an archaic regulatory scheme designed in the 1930’s to regulate telephone monopolies … and the results have been predictably bad. Investment in internet infrastructure declined for the first year ever, which means less innovation and less value for consumers.”

I think OpenMedia.org forgot about that in their online declaration that Net Neutrality is “the founding internet principle that keeps the web open, and ensures all content is treated equally” and abandoning it would make it so ISPs “will be able to engage in discriminatory practices” with regards to internet content. Maybe they were out sick the day in history class that the telephone monopolies were covered, when they also claimed that in order to “protect Net Neutrality … Title II–the part of the Communications​ Act of 1934 that safeguard Net Neutrality,” are necessary.

“The reason we can stop this plan is because gutting net neutrality is massively unpopular. So many people have made online comments against this plan that the FCC’s website crashed,” DemandProgress also asserts in their email. Just because they followed the Progressive crowd doesn’t mean they actually know what they are getting. One thing does confuse me, however, the FFTF claims they have “mobilized dozens of groups and millions of people to stand up for net neutrality,” yet there were only “… 1.2 million comments … [that] the FCC received demanding that the net neutrality rule stay in place.” All this is extremely reactionary and is really nothing more than a pause so the FCC’s head Ajit Pai can get input from the public. If you like Net Neutrality, then by all means comment, if you don’t–and feel like I do–follow this lead and comment.

According to Eric Boehm, of Reason.com, all this is overblown at this point and “it’s not the end of the debate over net neutrality, and it’s not the end of federal regulations for the internet. Instead, this is a first step towards eliminating a nonsensical legal justification for giving the FCC the authority to regulate internet service providers in the first place.” This coup is another attempt to demonstrate the supposed inequality in capitalism demonstrated by CREDOAction.com: “FCC Chairman Ajit Pai just announced his plan for the FCC to give up it’s role in protecting internet users–instead asking companies to voluntarily police themselves.” Ah yes, we can’t possibly function as a society without big brother making sure we all get along. Get ready for “free speech zones” and “safe spaces” on the web.

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. His recent book, Victims of White Male: How Victim Culture Victimizes Society, is available on Amazon.

WITH ALL THE CONCERNS ABOUT INTERNET security, because of the hacking of Sony to be more specific, the Obama administration has been pressured into action by progressive groups such as Openmedia and Demand Progress. The groups claim that Comcast and other greedy corporate entities have kept the internet in chains and need to be reined in. Apparently, from their perspective only the federal government can save the day, making Obama superman? That’s a scary thought! Obama as superman, he would apologize for interfering with the criminal and then assist him in blowing up the building. Is that too inflammatory? I thought I was allowed to make such comments in this country, but maybe I was wrong. With the fundamental misunderstanding of the role of government in our lives, our “superman” Obama has been eagerly waiting to advance a law to curtail freedom of speech and in the Net Neutrality extensions he would have it.

On February 26, the FCC is going to be reviewing its position in our lives. If Tom Wheeler – the current head of the FCC – agrees with the Obama administration that new restrictions and regulations are needed, this will basically be a reincarnation of the Fairness Doctrine. What are the implications of this? Well, nothing good, unless you are an Obama lapdog. When the Fairness Doctrine was in place during the Roosevelt administration, it nearing killed radio, because the general public was losing interest. They didn’t want to hear from the social democrats or progressives emotional preaching. The claim was that because the results weren’t the same, his progressive policies must not be given equal treatment by the radio industry – it never occurred to him that maybe the public didn’t care to hear it. This is what Obama believes is the case with the internet. The public loves him, so there must be something non-egalitarian in the internet, right? Sorry, superman the internet is already open and free, it’s just a lot of people don’t agree with you.

The internet, under the new guidelines, would mean censorship and higher prices for all. Despite the promises made by the Obama administration or the FCC, there will be no distinctions between the small no-budget blogger and those who manage the large power house media organizations. The fees will be less, but those who weren’t charged before, would be now. It’s also a very unnecessary move, the free market already regulates itself. Many internet organizations already offer free options for their sites, with fees only for additional features. Some say this is unfair. That doesn’t make sense, you should have to pay for extended services.

Freedom of speech is such a cherished and needed right, it is the pillar for a free society, something that we take for granted and others covet. Our nation has always been unique that we have that freedom and our leaders have been looking for ways to curtail our speech when it becomes “inconvenient.” Starting with John Adams, our second president, who wrote the sedition acts. Jailing journalists and pamphleteers writing scathing editorials about Adams. During World War I, president Wilson brought these laws back, incarcerating critics of America’s involvement in the war. Roosevelt also used such laws during World War II. That’s why the criticism of the Vietnam World seemed so intense, it was actually allowed! Our freedom of speech is so valuable, that so many fought to death for it and our most egotistical representatives fought – and continue to fight – to destroy it. The internet is the last refuge for such freedoms and worth fighting for, if we let the government neuter it we will regret it.